Wietse Venema wrote:
signed and invalid
unsigned
This distinction helps the bad guys/gals, and hurts the good guys/gals.
Thats an opinion and not one based on any engineering proof.
The fact is, the value of DKIM will be realized on anonymous
transactions when you don't know who is GOOD or BAD. When reputation
is know, DKIM has less value.
Think Experts Systems, Diagnostic Systems, Neuron and Fuzzy Boolean
logic. By eliminating the all important critical mal-function state,
the potential to learn is lost. The potential to add tolerance levels
is lost. i.e, anyone with perpetual failure can eventfully be dealt
with. And by failure, that means any condition that is not expected,
whether its the l= or x= detected problem, or just plain hashing failure.
In lieu of a standard DOMAIN Policy protocol as a major part of DKIM,
it is far worst to ignore failure and promote it to unsigned state
than to keep this state and pass it on to the next level - whatever
that is.
To me, this is the REAL BIS material that should be reevaluated,
because to me, that is one of the barriers to adoption.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html